Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Good link. The founders had good economic intuition, and collective action problems and externalities were at the forefront of their consideration of the division of powers between the federal government, the states, and the people. The most obvious example in Article 1 Section 8 is of course the vague authority to appropriate money for the "general welfare". When people like Madison and Jefferson got more specific on what this power entailed (for example - the power to construct roads), their language got even more recognizable to modern economists. In fact, the real objection to the road building wasn't the federal authority to appropriate money for it, but the federal authority to commandeer state land for the investment.

Bad link. Reason.com argues that Obama is getting a blank check from the anti-war movement, and it's because of partisanship. I don't understand why people get taken in by this argument. I participated in the anti-war movement in to a certain extent during the Bush administration. I participated in a couple marches. "Anti-war" is something of a misnomer... while there were genuinely "anti-war" people there what it really was was "anti-Iraq-war". Most of the vocally "anti-war" people I knew agreed with me that Afghanistan was a legitimate commitment of troops and Iraq was not a legitimate commitment of troops. We have seen a lot of violence in Afghanistan the last couple years, but I resent being called partisan or a hypocrite for not being as concerned as I was. Obama did what a lot of us elected him to do - get us out of Iraq in a rational way and get the job done in Afghanistan. Exactly when and how we need to get out of Afghanistan is a tough question that I could muse on but don't have the expertise to answer. But Reason.com shouldn't obscure the real issue at hand. The comparison they made is also quite strange - they looked at the first three years of the Bush administration and compared it to the first two and a half years of the Obama administration. We didn't even get into Iraq until 2003. What kind of comparison is that?!?!? Reason.com is too wrapped up in the politics of this question and pays too little attention to the policy.

22 comments:

The article at Reason.com was written by Ira Stoll; at least treat the piece as if it were written by a real person.

From the aforementioned article:

In a phone interview, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the largest antiwar protests during the Bush administration, Michael McPhearson, said part of the explanation is political partisanship. A lot of the antiwar protesters, he said, were Democrats. “Once Obama got into office, they kind of demobilized themselves,” he said.

“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”

______________________________

So apparently isn't simply just Ira Stoll who thinks this; someone intimately involved in organizing the marches against the Iraq war thinks this. Sort of interesting that Daniel doesn't mention this rather strong piece of evidence against his argument.

"Obama did what a lot of us elected him to do - get us out of Iraq in a rational way and get the job done in Afghanistan."

Right now the Obama administration is trying to extend presence of U.S. troops in Iraq past the SFA agreement deadline of Dec. 31st, 2011. If Bush were in office still and trying to negotiate a continuance like this there would be a media firestorm; there would be protests, etc. So explain the difference? Is it that Obama is somehow more trusthworthy on foreign affairs? Well, Libya has demonstrated otherwise. I am paying close attention to the policy, and Obama's policies mirror those of Bush.

Right, but I'm guessing he's sympathetic to the view that both wars are wrong. My argument against Stoll applies equally well to him and my criticism of the claim that this is partisan applies equally well to him.

I know Stoll isn't the only one that's made this argument. You've made it too after all. The fact that people agree with you doesn't make it any better of an argument.

re: " If Bush were in office still and trying to negotiate a continuance like this there would be a media firestorm; there would be protests, etc. So explain the difference?"

I think you're imagining the difference. If Bush drew down troops but didn't go cold turkey, and put renewed emphasis on the war that most Americans thought was legitimate I don't think there would be protests in the streets.

re: "I am paying close attention to the policy, and Obama's policies mirror those of Bush."

Bush moved towards a policy at the end of his presidency that Obama continued and it was a good one. It would have been better, of course, if we never entered Iraq in the first place.

The difference is of course that this guy knows a lot more about the anti-war movement than you do; he has local knowledge that you lack. So his argument carries a lot more weight. If he says that partisanship is an issue then that is an argument worth considering. You're opinion is just that; you're opinion. You're a guy who went to a couple of marches; this is a person who organized those marches and lives the issue day to day. He's an expert, you're not. Remember what Romer said about experts recently?

Most Americans don't think the war in Iraq is legitimate (or that in Afghanistan either); yet Obama wants to extend the former and continues to double-down on the latter. Once Obama loses in 2012 and a Republican candidate continues the war in Afghanistan you'll see the protesters on the streets again in significant numbers.

Obama's policy's mirror those of Bush because both believe the notion that the U.S. should be interventionist; should be a global straddling force for peace and all that. Same overall policy, differences of opinion on the particular aspects thereof. And it is the policy in general in D.C.; that world would fall to pieces if it were not for the U.S. keeping the peace, blah, blah, blah.

This conversation illustrates the fundamental difference between most libertarians and most Democrats. Most Democrats are alright with the "world cop" idea as long as a Democrat is in charge; when a Republican is in charge, they get all nervous and protesty. Libertarians on the other hand are in general uncomfortable with the idea no matter who is in charge.

He's an expert with a very specific view of what he wants the anti-war movement to be, Gary. These movements aren't monoliths.

Whenever someone cites Palin as the sole arbiter of the Tea Party perspective people rightfully criticize that. Whenever someone cites a libertarian you don't like you go nuts and go on and on about how diverse libertarianism is. I know this guy has a perspective.

Daniel, not sure if you already do this, but you should read Glenn Greenwald. He was an Obama supporter initially but is now disgusted with him. GG points out eloquently, in dozens of posts, how the same people who flipped out over Bush Policy X are now silent on Obama Policy 2X. For example, Patriot Act, extra-judicial imprisonment (and now executions), etc. Not to mention the completely illegal war in Libya.

GG is by no means a right-winger. I can't stand his economic views. But he understands that a lot of antiwar people--I'm not including you necessarily--turned out to be anti-Republican-war people.

I'm turned off by these people who (you two included, perhaps) who think they know what people think about Obama. It's like Sean Hannity calling him the "anointed one", etc.

You all don't seem to have any concept of what is appealing about him and the sense in which he seems to be the best of a range of unattractive-in-their-own-way options. Is he less attractive than he seemed to be in 2008? Sure. But I think for most intelligent people this was entirely anticipated. Who ISN'T that true of?

Anyway - there's no real point in arguing the point. Obama's a half decent option in a wide field of quarter decent and downright bad options. You guys and the Cato author don't really seem to understand what motivates people who think they are likely to vote for Obama again in 2012 (myself included). I've come to learn that when I hear someone mention the "thrill up my leg" point the conversation usually isn't worth having.

Yes, I have no idea why people find Obama appealing; then again, I have no idea why people find any politician appealing (that includes Ron Paul and Gary Johnson as well). Politicians are actors; they are the second and third hand dealers of other people's ideas. They are always behind the curve when it comes to anything remotely useful or controversial. Maybe they are necessary? But appealing? The only reason they might be appealing is due to good P.R. and people shutting down those portions of their brains which ought to help them critically assess the sorts of outlandish and silly claims that politicians make about themselves.

Now, I do understand why people find, say, Norman Borlaug appealing, then again, he actually did something important with his life; he actually improved the lives of others.

Appealing in their limited capacity, Gary. Note how I qualified that (although actually I'm sure in a personal capacity a lot of people that are unappealing politicians are fairly appealing and amicable).

Keynes said that "one blames politicians, not for inconsistency, but for obstinancy. They are the interpreters, not the masters of our fate. It is their job, in short, to register the fait accompli." In this limited capacity we can find none appealing but perhaps a few more appealing and workable than the rest. Certainly having elected representatives that disappoint is better than having no workable outlet for self-government. Let's make sure we are considering reasonable counter-factuals here, and not comparing to some Platonic ideal that's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Presidents lose appeal over time and they lose a lot of appeal during economic downturns. I'm not sure what else there is to say. I'm not sure what Postrel is talking about in terms of "glamor" and "charisma". Obama was certainly more charismatic than most - he could deliver a good speech. But I think she's missing the point. Good speeches are nice to hear, but I've heard people I disagree strongly with give good speeches too and there are people I agree with strongly that have no charisma at all.

There is nothing appealing about politicians in either a limited or a full capacity. They are empty vessels and should be treated as such.

"Certainly having elected representatives that disappoint is better than having no workable outlet for self-government."

The fatal flaw is the assumption that self-government must come via politicians, etc.

Postrel explains the difference in her article rather well. No, he delivered glamorous speeches; which is why you could find hundreds of different opinions about the guy and what he stood for from his followers. That's what first let me on the notion that he was a bullshit artist - namely the way people poured their desires into him without any ability to critically reflect on what the guy actually stood for (this is a common trait of Presidential candidates for obvious reasons, but Obama was more adept at it than many).

There is nothing appealing about politicians in either a limited or a full capacity. They are empty vessels and should be treated as such.

"Certainly having elected representatives that disappoint is better than having no workable outlet for self-government."

The fatal flaw is the assumption that self-government must come via politicians, etc.

Postrel explains the difference in her article rather well. No, he delivered glamorous speeches; which is why you could find hundreds of different opinions about the guy and what he stood for from his followers. That's what first let me on the notion that he was a bullshit artist - namely the way people poured their desires into him without any ability to critically reflect on what the guy actually stood for (this is a common trait of Presidential candidates for obvious reasons, but Obama was more adept at it than many).

When Obama loses in 2012 my attitude toward the President, the Congress, etc. will not change; the government is too big, it is has overgrown its constitutional boundaries, etc. and I will have as scorching an attitude toward that when President Romney (or whoever) is in office as today when President Obama is in office. For the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans their attitudes towards politics, the nature and scope of government, etc. will do a volte face from what it is today. And there will be no nuance about this change in attitude; it will happen Jan. 20th 2013.

How do I know that? I've lived through the 1992, 2000, 2008 elections as some kind of independent and that sort of flip happened each time. The gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth will commence for Democrats after Nov. of 2012.

I don't want to be shrill here, but I don't understand how you can talk about Obama like he broke two dishes in his first day working at a restaurant. No, he is currently presiding over a war in Libya that is illegal even under the BS pretext that his administration gave it initially.

I'm not supporting any "quarter bad" options or whatever you want to call it. I don't feel the need to single out a person chosen by the two parties and pick which killer will get my support for the next four years.

(I'm sorry to be so emotional or whatever you want to call it, but we're not even having the same conversation here. I bring up a few specific things, and you get mad about Sean Hannity. Yeah, Hannity is an idiot. And Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winning killer.)

"Obama did what a lot of us elected him to do - get us out of Iraq in a rational way and get the job done in Afghanistan."

out of curiosity, did you actually mean to write this sentence? I mean, we're not out of Iraq (pre-surge levels essentially and the withdraw if it happens is essnetially the "Bush timetable") and the job doesn't appear to be getting done in Afghanistan (ask the SEALS). Also, there's the whole interrogation and Gitmo thing . . . .

Also, three years into the Bush administration would be March 2004, or roughly a year into Iraq. How long have we been in Libya?

Is the Constitutional case stronger or weaker for Libya? And don't tell me about "Busk lies," everyone who had the slightest understanding of political gamesmanship in 2003 saw through that, including the Democratic Congressmen who voted for invasion.